memory_alphafandomcom-20200223-history
Memory Alpha:Category suggestions
---- In-universe categories Subspace communication To replace Template:Subspace, unless it could be edited into "technology" and "types of communications" sections. --LauraCC (talk) 19:39, February 1, 2017 (UTC) category=Subspace category=communications technology --LauraCC (talk) 19:46, February 1, 2017 (UTC) I've left off sortkeying some of the ones in category "subspace" that I recognize as communication related until the category idea is rejected or accepted. --LauraCC (talk) 17:19, February 2, 2017 (UTC) :I'm not exactly clear on why it needs replaced, unless we're on a mission to eliminate all of these navigational-type templates. I wouldn't be opposed to a category of "Subspace communications" for these articles as a sub-cat of "Communications technology", but I don't really know that it's necessary. I'd like to hear some other opinions. -- Renegade54 (talk) 20:40, February 16, 2017 (UTC) Those that are more like a diagram/table and less like a long list, such as Template:Enterprise conn officers are fine. My problem with the subspace communications one is that it's not organized like that. It's just an alphabetical list. --LauraCC (talk) 20:46, February 16, 2017 (UTC) :That's exactly what it is, an alphabetical list linking articles in two distinct categories: "Subspace" and "Communications technology". It *has* grown longer over time from when it was first implemented, though, so it *may* be time to retire it in favor of another approach. Anyone else? -- Renegade54 (talk) 22:14, February 16, 2017 (UTC) ::Support. - 12:35, February 19, 2017 (UTC) :::I'm not entirely convinced. I think it is fine as is. --| TrekFan Open a channel 19:56, January 23, 2018 (UTC) Okay, so we have a maybe, a yes, and a no. If you don't count me, it's tied. TrekFan, do you have any reasons why you like it as is? --LauraCC (talk) 15:02, April 6, 2018 (UTC) Eating establishments There sure are an awful lot of restaurants and bars in the DS9 establishments and Earth establishments categories. --LauraCC (talk) 20:05, May 5, 2017 (UTC) :Support the idea but Oppose about the name. Any better category name? Tom (talk) 12:01, May 7, 2017 (UTC) My first instinct is "Restaurants"...but what about the jumja stick kiosk? --LauraCC (talk) 16:36, May 9, 2017 (UTC) ::If you add hotels then that's , I suppose. Can't imagine the people in Star Trek ever using that term though. -- Capricorn (talk) 07:50, May 10, 2017 (UTC) :::An "eatery" is any "informal" place to eat, while a "dining establishment" is any place you can eat dinner, and generally implies a "fine" in front of it when compared to the low end of what eatery covers. Since this category is clearly not going to replace the above mentioned categories, and one can only assume it would be in the establishments category, I don't think we need to overthink this and create multiple categories based on the minutia of the many, many terms used for "place where you can buy ready to eat things for your food hole" in the English language. While I'm pretty opposed to the "eating" option, any of the other ones would be fine whenever someone gets around to doing the actual work for the suggester. - 08:12, May 10, 2017 (UTC) "Culinary establishments"? --LauraCC (talk) 19:42, June 22, 2017 (UTC) :::: Though I haven't seen the complete list of what is proposed to go in this category, but "restaurant" applies to every example listed thus far. By definition a restaurant (and by default an "eatery") is simply: "a business establishment where meals or refreshments may be procured", and as such a "bar", a "food kiosk", a "café", "Ten Forward", and the "Replimat" are all types of restaurants. --Alan del Beccio (talk) 19:03, June 26, 2017 (UTC) Borg spatial designations Subcat of "Regions" and "Borg". There are a heaping helping of grids listed on the page. --LauraCC (talk) 16:41, August 2, 2017 (UTC) Having them all in one one category allows non-grids to be included too. Or we could template this, I suppose. --LauraCC (talk) 17:34, February 24, 2018 (UTC) Sleep We have Category:Death for death-related items. What about a category for "sleep"? Here is a list of the sleep-related items I've compiled. * Alarm clock * Alpha-wave inducer * Alpha wave * Bed * Bedding * Bedroom * Bedtime/Nap time * Blanket * Crib * Delta sleep * Delta-wave inducer * Delta wave * Directed dreaming * Dolbargy sleeping trance * Dormancy period * Dream * Dreamcatcher * Exhaustion * Eyelid * Hibernation * Hibernation pod * Hypnagogia * Hypnosis * Insomnia * Lucid dream * Lullaby * Mattress * (Warm) Milk * Milk toddy * Nap * Night * Night cap * Nightgown * Nightmare * Pajamas * Pillow * Quarters * Rapid eye movement * Regeneration * Rock-a-bye Baby * Sedative ** Ambizine ** Anesthizine ** Axonol ** Dylamadon ** Felicium ** Improvoline ** Kayolane ** Melorazine ** Merfadon ** Neuro-sedative ** Sonambutril ** Terakine ** Tetrovaline * Sheets * Sleep * Sleep, Little Warrior * Sleep disorder * Sleeping area/space * Sleeping bag * Sleeping Beauty * Sleep mask * Sleep cycle * Sleeper ship * Sleepwalking * Sleeping mat * Somnetic inducer * Snoring * Tent * Trance * Yawn --LauraCC (talk) 19:32, August 23, 2018 (UTC) It would also be a subcat of Category:Biology, just as death and sex already are. --LauraCC (talk) 18:23, September 18, 2018 (UTC) Sedative could have its own category, or navbox template. --LauraCC (talk) 21:04, February 1, 2019 (UTC) Fabrics category=fashion category=materials ordermethod=title namespace= Subcat of fashion and materials. For all fabrics out of which clothing, blankets, etc is made. --LauraCC (talk) 17:50, September 13, 2018 (UTC) Clones If we have a category for hybrids, then why not clones... * Sim * Elizabeth * Not , but something like it * Stavos Keniclius 5 * Spock Two * Mariposa inhabitants * Wilson Granger * Victor Granger * Elizabeth Vallis * * * * #1 * #2 * Not , but something like it * Yelgrun * Weyoun 4 * Weyoun 5 * Weyoun 6 * Weyoun 7 * Weyoun 8 * Unnamed Vorta * Shinzon --Alan (talk) 00:54, January 10, 2019 (UTC) :Why not replicant O'Brien or ? Also, doppelgänger. - 05:45, January 10, 2019 (UTC) I guess those could be valid "like" things, but are they really clones? Everything I see about the O'Brien replicant and the page about replicants seems to not indicate that that term equaled clone. Other than "There was no way to prove he wasn't you." Which I guess made him better than a clone. Of course, the background information explicitly makes that point more so than the non-information defined about it on screen. The same can be said for Atoz, who was simply called a "replica", and was described as being capable of doing the simpler tasks, but again, nothing as to the matter of the replica's origin. The Picard one, does "Our transporter is able to replicate living matter, including the brain's many trillion dendritic connections where memory is stored." equal clone? Also add to the maybe list: Travis Mayweather (replica). --Alan (talk) 18:29, January 10, 2019 (UTC) :Well, the term is kinda what I'm getting at, in that do we want a category for this very particular definition, a more "general" category for "clones", or even a category at all? A lot of the entries at doppelgänger are "clones" if not actual clones, but I can't come up with a category term or scope that would cover the Rikers, O'Briens, Torres, and Elizabeth. Biological duplicate doesn't cover the last two, clone seems to be out for at least O'Brien if not Torres, and Elisabeth doesn't have a doppelgänger/duplicate/original at all. I'm also not sure if One would be in this as well. - (on an unsecure connection) 21:29, January 10, 2019 (UTC) Well, there is still 21 (counting unnamed people links) pages for folks who were explicitly called clones, which in itself is enough to justify that, just as it did for hybrids or augments. --Alan (talk) 22:14, January 10, 2019 (UTC) :Unnamed people links should never be categorized outside of the unnamed redirect categories, but there are "enough" pages even without them. I'm just wondering if there isn't a better, more inclusive category we should make instead, or if a better version of doppelgänger would cover the subject best. If this has some sort of note like at Category:Augments about the scope, that would at least help non-clone "clones" ending up in this. - (on an unsecure connection) 22:32, January 10, 2019 (UTC) I was thinking about that too. And obviously it would be nice to collect everything together, and I even thought "artificially biological lifeforms", but that doesn't really roll off the tongue, but it would at least include replicants, some doppelgangers, clones and augments. But keep in mind too, by definition, a doppelganger is "non-biologically related look-alike or double of a living person" -- which does rule out clones. As for the other thing about unnamed redirects, I was never implying that the redirects should be categorized, just the Unnamed Vorta pages and Mariposa inhabitants pages listed above would be listed under clones. --Alan (talk) 23:09, January 10, 2019 (UTC) :So the best I could come up with is "biological replica" which fits most of these, but not all. That said, the Webster and Google definitions for "doppelgangers" are usable. Elisabeth would be out, but I think all the others could be in under the looser definition we are already using for the page. Using that term would also place Category:Holographic duplicates and soe of the other stuff on the page. - (on an unsecure connection) 17:37, January 11, 2019 (UTC) It almost makes you want to say bioreplicant. But how does a holographic duplicate count towards biological replica?--Alan (talk) 18:15, January 11, 2019 (UTC) :I'm not opposed to a "bioreplicants" category. A doppelgangers category could have holographic duplicate in it. - (on an unsecure connection) 19:37, January 11, 2019 (UTC) ::What about non-clone doubles, like Geordi La Forge (alias)? Using a real person's name as an alias, not making something up. --LauraCC (talk) 16:03, January 14, 2019 (UTC) :That's what the doppelgänger page is for, and aliases already have a category. - (on an unsecure connection) 21:51, February 1, 2019 (UTC) Marriage For all the wedding related things, divorce, etc...--LauraCC (talk) 18:33, February 9, 2019 (UTC) :Oppose, no rationale. - (on an unsecure connection) 16:19, February 12, 2019 (UTC) Intelligence agencies Currently there are 19 listed at intelligence agency. Since these are not exactly law enforcement agencies, they don't belong in that category, yet should have their own complementary category to the existing Category:Law enforcement agencies. --Alan (talk) 14:07, March 6, 2019 (UTC) :Reasonable. Support, though keep the list there to show which planet/species each originates from (the names of some don't make that clear). --LauraCC (talk) 17:28, March 7, 2019 (UTC) Law enforcement officers Also I believe I brought up a suggestion for law enforcement officers in the past, but I think the biggest concern was not to have it be inundated with all of the Starfleet security officers that probably qualify, in a category originally intended to collect the upwards of 20 "civilian", non-military, non-Starfleet quote unquote police officers it was originally intended to highlight. Keeping that in mind, perhaps we should establish a category for Starfleet security personnel (<-- since we're already making that distinction here as an individual thing) and subcat that into the proposed law enforcement officer category as well as the current Starfleet operations personnel category. --Alan (talk) 14:07, March 6, 2019 (UTC) :Support. --LauraCC (talk) 17:28, March 7, 2019 (UTC) ::Wouldn't it be better to limit this to just the "police", even when they were called something else because of translated alien language, assuming that the intention isn't to include wardens and other non-police law enforcement officers. My concern about bloat wasn't just limited to Starfleet Security, but that all Starfleet personnel fit the general "law enforcement" description. Only MPs and Starfleet Security fit the description of "police personnel" as far as I can tell, and that avoids the other issues, assuming that there isn't some "canon" term problem there. - (on an unsecure connection) 22:05, March 8, 2019 (UTC) Culinary techniques A subcat of "skills" and "foods and beverages", for techniques which fall into both. category=skills category=foods and beverages ordermethod=title namespace= --LauraCC (talk) 16:08, April 17, 2019 (UTC) :Oppose, nav template at best, and most of these shouldn't be in F&B based on its scope, and the one that should shouldn't be grouped with the most of the rest. Also, there are plenty of categories here that need creation before we need another one with less than 20 pages. - 04:11, April 18, 2019 (UTC) Can you explain why they shouldn't be? Cooking techniques are food-related. --LauraCC (talk) 15:28, April 23, 2019 (UTC) :F&B isn't for things related, it's for things that are the subject. The page subject IS the category. The Enterprise IS a starship, Pluto IS a planet, while catering IS NOT a food and/or beverage. We might let a few relate pages in a IS category here and there, but there are too many in F&B, and the solution to that isn't isn't another small sub-category. - 07:25, April 24, 2019 (UTC) Production POV categories Unreleased novels There is Category:Unreleased video games, so I think a similar cat for unreleased novels as subcat of Category:Novels would make sense. The first that come to mind are those alternate reality novels which got cancelled, but I think there are a few more. Kennelly (talk) 15:35, December 14, 2017 (UTC) :Support. Maybe a list would be helpful though. Tom (talk) 19:11, February 9, 2018 (UTC) :Have to withdraw my vote and change to oppose. We already have this site which is a good article and collection in my opinion. I don't see the need of a category which would list around five of six articles. Tom (talk) 21:07, February 20, 2018 (UTC) ::The undeveloped novel and reference book page actually makes me think this would be a good idea, since there are also redirects that would fit into this category, beyond the few pages we already have, so support. - 06:37, March 14, 2018 (UTC) Maintenance categories